Solar Cheaper then Coal

[Kaio]

So, i'm thinkin this sounds too good to be true but I don't know enough about the technology to actually analyze this. Says it will be in production next year. With panels that cost like 1/10th what they do now ro something of that sort.

Here is the article:

Nanosolar’s Breakthrough - Solar Now Cheaper than Coal » Celsias

But if it is true and we make improvements on batteries or other electrical storage we might ease the gas issue quite a bit.

[Clericnon2boxed]

It would be awesome but my tinfoilcoatedwithnanosolar hat has me sceptical that the energygiants wouldnt buy out and bury anything that could have a huge impact on their many many billion dollar profits.

[GrobbeeTrull2.0]

It'd be quite a buyout, as that company is funded by Google. I was just coming here to post it. Great news, and with it cheaper than coal (where Ohio gets it's energy!), I'm fucking stoked. Sign me up for a few rolls on my house, cars, dog, etc.

$0.30 per watt! Yay.

[Kaio]

The ramifications of this actually being true is utterly ridiculous. Coal should be one of the cheapest sources of power we have that depends on fuel.

[Clericnon2boxed]

it can still be delayed by environmentalists(backed by the evil energy empire) or whatever demanding year long studies about the effects of nanostructures on nature etc, still its good to hear that google is behind it

[Pharazon]

It was Popular Science's Innovation of the Year, sounds legit. Not only is it cheaper to manufacture but much easier to install than typical solar panels since its so much lighter. Its easy to envision this stuff being put on rooftops everywhere in the next 10 years assuming they can get enough production of it going.

[GrobbeeTrull2.0]

Originally Posted by Kaio

The ramifications of this actually being true is utterly ridiculous. Coal should be one of the cheapest sources of power we have that depends on fuel.

Which is why if this is true, we should theoretically never need coal/oil to generate electricity, and only for stored energy purposes and manufacturing.

I'm a little fuzzy on how cheap this will be for your average joe. I tried to search on the interweb for some help, but I'm not exactly math inclined, especially when dealing with energy.

They say this can produce energy at a one-time cost of $0.30 per watt. How can we use this number to determine how much money we'd be spending (approximately) on this new solar tech? Is it too early to tell without their price guide?

For instance, we average about 1250 kWh a month in Ohio, which is anywhere from 30-40 kWh a day. Would I need to spend (theoretically) $12,000 on the high end for the sheeting alone? That's about what it costs now for panels... so where is the savings? Am I not seeing it? Fix my math!

[prescient63]

So wikipedia says

These solar cells successfully blend the needs for efficiency, low cost, and longevity and will be easy to install due to their flexibility and light weight. Estimates by Nanosolar of the cost of these cells, fall roughly between 1/10th and 1/5th [6] the industry standard per kilowatt.

I like this idea hopefully it doesn't turn into one of those great ideas on paper that can't be executed in real life.

Edit: Apparently, Nanosolar lost their chief scientist to applied materials. Where he will be working on the same types of products over there.

[Ninajrr]

@Grob

Numbers on Page 2 explains that this calculation is probably nonsensical

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

kWh != Watts, thats where your problem lies.

If you have a 50 watt appliance and leave it on for 10 hours, it uses 50 kWh of energy. kWh is another form of energy, like the Joule. Wattage is a measure of power, more commonly understood as energy per time (Joule per Second).

I think what you need to do is:

1250 kWh/month, 30*24 hours/month, therefore:
1250,000 Wh/month/(30*8 hours/month)=5208.333 watts/month, at .30 $/w:
5208.333 w*.30 $/w=$1562.50

edit: 8 hours of sunlight per day, not 24.

[Kaio]

Originally Posted by Clericnon2boxed

it can still be delayed by environmentalists(backed by the evil energy empire) or whatever demanding year long studies about the effects of nanostructures on nature etc, still its good to hear that google is behind it

Not google per se but the co-founders/ceo Sergey and Larry if i remember correctly.

[Burf]

One of the comments says:

I can’t believe this article even made it online, there are so many mistakes its not even funny, not to mention “reducing the cost of production from $3 a watt to 30 cents per watt, this makes, for the first time in history, solar power cheaper than burning coal.”
That simply isnt true, not to mention the units are completely wrong. For a start power when sold is sold by the kwh. Even so if solar power is now at the 30c per kwh its at least 4 times as expensive as other technologies.

Further more the claim that the San Jose site will “be capable of producing 430 megawatts per year” again is another example of the writers ineptitude. The definition of a Watt is a Joule per Second. This is utter rubbish.

Anyone? I got nothing.

[Kaio]

Panel wise why is it even mentioning per watt cost? I mean doesn't it all depend on how long these things last? It's not like your burning a constant stream of fuel, it's something with a high startup cost and little afterwards I would imagine. That whole metric seems to be worthless without knowing how long they are expecting it to run.

I believe i saw the 25 year length thrown around. I know that current solar cells can pay for themselves in about 10-15 years in certain households. So after that point you should have reached an average kwh cost to be an amount below what you would have payed to the electric company.

1/10th should be 1-1.5 years and 1/5th being, 2-3 years.

Edit: Hrm it will definatley still be over 3-4 years since theres lots of other costs outside of panels themselves i seem to have forgotten about. The comments in the article below the one quoted above clarify certain things in the article.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Correcting Metalstorm:
Maybe you have other complaints about the article, but the two you mentioned are groundless. 30 cents per watt is not a measure of the cost of electricity from these panels, but of the panels themselves. It means that i could buy a kilowatt panel for .30$/W*1000W=300$, if that panel lasts for 25 years (the warranty), and averages 8 hours of sunlight per day at a kilowatt, that is 1kw*8h/d*365d/y*25y=73000kWh over its lifetime, so the cost per kWh is 300$/73000kWh=.004109$/kWh ~ 4 tenths of a cent per Kilowatt hour. Obviously, for the end user, this figure is higher due to installation and retail markup (but is lowered by incentive programs). Also, the output of the plant is measured in Megawatts because its a *manufacturing* plant, it makes panels, not electricity. So before you hurl insults, check yourself.

That was the reply mentioned. Pretty interesting stuff. Now the only question is how big is a kilowatt panel going to be.

[Soriak]

Originally Posted by Burf

One of the comments says:

Anyone? I got nothing.

edit: beaten by neb

The installation costs are probably going to be a lot higher, though. Not that it matters - even at $10,000 it'd pay off within less than a decade and according to the site they give a 25-year warranty.

[Fog]

Originally Posted by Clericnon2boxed

It would be awesome but my tinfoilcoatedwithnanosolar hat has me sceptical that the energygiants wouldnt buy out and bury anything that could have a huge impact on their many many billion dollar profits.

What do you mean, they would buy out and bury it? If one of them bought it out and buried it then wouldn't another of them build it instead of burying it and sink them?